The Ascension, the body, and the kingdom of God

Barry posted a comment on my post on heaven expressing his ongoing surprise that “the whole immortal soul/heaven idea has become such an immovable foundation of the faith of most Christians when there’s no evidence for it in the Bible.” I agree, and I think it’s unfortunate, but I can understand it. Gnostic and quasi-Gnostic ideas of spirituality and the body are just very natural to us, I think, going all the way back to Genesis 3 (it would be a stretch to call Gnosticism the original temptation, but I think it’s a very close descendant); it just seems obvious to us that if we’re going to have eternal life, we must be immortal, and if any part of us is immortal, it must be our spirits. Throw in that a lot of folks don’t want to have to take the body seriously (either because they want to transcend it and become “more than human,” or because they want to be free to do whatever they like), and you have a pretty strong pull to this sort of thinking. It’s easy for people to drift into it (since that tends to be the way the times go) without ever really realizing that it’s less than what God promises us.

Whether people realize it or not, though, it is less, because our bodies aren’t unimportant, and they aren’t incidental to who we are. We exist as body and spirit together, and our bodies, though fallen and subject to sin, are beautiful and precious; certainly, to live forever in bodies that aged and fell ill and broke down would be no good thing, but to leave them behind forever would be no good thing either, for it would make us less than ourselves. That’s why God promises to raise us, whole, from the dead, in imperishable, incorruptible bodies, because our bodies are part of us, and every part of us matters to God, in every aspect of who we are and what we do.

This means that what we do with our bodies matters, because our bodies are sites of God’s redemption; his Spirit is alive and at work in our bodies as well as in our spirits, for they are inseparably woven together, to remake us into the people he created us to be. This is why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6 that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and why he tells the Corinthians that they need to watch what they do with their bodies, because there are no merely physical acts. Every act is spiritual, because every act that affects our bodies—food, sex, exercise, sleep, slipping and falling, getting back up—every act affects our spirits, and we won’t be leaving these bodies behind. They’ll be transformed when God makes all things new, but they’ll still be our bodies, and what we do with them matters, to us and to God.

To some, this might not seem like good news, but I think it is; it’s the good news that because Jesus ascended into heaven in the body, as a human being, there is room for us in our full humanity in the presence of God. There is no part of us God will not redeem—no good thing he will not purify, no bad thing he will not transform. There is room for us in the kingdom of God as whole people, scars and all, because he has redeemed us as whole people, scars and all; when the kingdom comes, even our scars will no longer bring us pain, or shame, for they, too, will be the marks of the redemptive work of Jesus in our lives.

The church, the prophet, the whale—and God

The latest issue of Touchstone has a remarkable article surveying children’s versions of the story of Jonah—and showing just how badly wrong they get the book, on the whole. (About halfway through I got up to check our copy of The Jesus Storybook Bible, which I posted on a while back, to see how it answered the challenge; it did better than most, but was not without flaw, cutting Jonah’s story off before chapter four.) There’s no question that most adults (even in the church!) have a seriously distorted mental picture of the book of Jonah, one which rarely gets beyond the question, “Was it a whale or was it a fish?” (Answer: to the ancient Jews, they were both fish.) From Ronald Marshall’s survey, it’s not hard to understand why.

What I particularly appreciate about the piece is that his analysis of the matter goes beyond anything I’d thought of. I’d always figured that most of the sanitizing of the book was rooted in the fact that Jonah, as an anointed prophet of God, ought to act like a hero and doesn’t—that the primary concern was squeezing him as much as possible into that mold. Wouldn’t do, after all, to admit that one of God’s prophets could be such a whiny, priggish, self-righteous, hateful jerk. The Rev. Marshall goes further, though, suggesting that “Jonah is a horrifying book”—which he’s right, it is, though I’ve never particularly felt that—and that the main concern has been to neuter it, to remove the horror and render it “safe for children.” (C. S. Lewis would have had a pungent comment about that, I think.) The problem is, as the article’s subhead puts it, “In removing the fear from the story of Jonah, children’s versions remove the gospel, too.”

This is because the great truth at the heart of the book of Jonah is the juxtaposition of God’s holy fury at human sin with his holy will to show mercy to human sinners. God’s hatred of the evil practiced by the Assyrian Empire was so great (with good reason) that he wanted to destroy Nineveh; yet he preferred to destroy them as his enemies by bringing them to repentance, so he sent Jonah to preach a message of warning to them. God’s hatred of Jonah’s rebellion was such that he sent a storm to drive him into the ocean, into the terror of drowning and the hell of the stomach of the sea-beast; yet he desired to show mercy to his recalcitrant prophet, and when Jonah prayed for forgiveness, he relented, and Jonah was vomited up onto the shore. And when Jonah sat down to try to shame God into destroying Nineveh despite its people’s repentance, God made the shade tree grow, then killed it, in an effort to bring Jonah around; where Jonah’s motto seems to have been, “Hate the sin, hate the (non-Jewish) sinner more,” God seeks to teach his prophet to love mercy.

In all this, of course, God isn’t nice to Jonah; one could easily argue that he’s far more considerate of the Ninevites who would destroy his people than he is of the prophet whom he called to serve him. But then, Jesus wasn’t nice to those who were leading his people astray, either—nor was God the Father nice to Jesus. God’s purposes are far, far bigger than being nice to us and making us comfortable and happy; his hatred of our sin is no less real and great than his hatred of the sin of others, nor is his desire to show mercy to those others any less than his desire to show mercy to us. If we’re seeking a God who’s “on our side,” we’re looking in the wrong place. The Bible doesn’t give us a God who’s on our side, it shows us God and calls us to be on his side. (This is the greatest error in all typically American forms of theology, including even black liberation theology, which is rooted in the great truth that God lifts up the cause of the oppressed.) To the extent that we resist what God is doing, he isn’t on our side at all. As Rev. Marshall puts it, working from Kierkegaard:

Kierkegaard stunningly ties this story to Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 5:44 to love our enemies. When God destroys the tree, he is being “so terrible” to Jonah. If this is the way God loves his servants, there are no “syrupy sweets” in it at all. Rather, the “strenuous and sacrificial” marks this love.

Because God is so rough on us, Jesus said we should love our enemies—knowing full well that God is our “most appalling enemy.” Loving our enemies is primarily about loving God. Therefore, Kierkegaard concludes, “God wants you to die, to die to the world; he hates specifically that in which you naturally have your life, to which you cling with all your zest for life.”

God makes Jonah miserable, but for his own good. He breaks apart his worldly hopes and dreams and pushes him into a new life. He shows him that his own comfort does not matter. He calls Jonah to set his mind “on things that are above, not on things that are on earth”—things like some wilting shade tree (Col. 3:2). And for all this cruel treatment, Jonah is to love God anyway, simply because Matthew 5:44 says we are to love and not hate our enemies.

This is the hard truth of the life of faith, that following God isn’t about “our best life now” and God helping us realize our potential as we see fit, according to our own desires; it’s about denying ourselves, even dying to ourselves, and God killing that part of us that needs to die. Granted, he does so in order “that we might have life, and have it abundantly,” but it isn’t our best life, it’s his; and getting there means confronting our darkness, and the horror of which we’re capable, head on. It means understanding both the full measure of the awesome wrath of God against sin—and the fact that our sin deserves that wrath—and the awesome depth and breadth of the mercy of God for sinners, which took that wrath upon himself on the cross. Just as Jonah sacrificed himself to save the sailors from the wrath of God (though he did so because he preferred death to obedience), so Jesus sacrificed himself to save “the entire boat of humanity” (in St. Jerome’s words). And as Jared’s been arguing over at The Thinklings, and as C. J. Mahaney talked about with Sinclair Ferguson, it’s only if we understand that fact in its full significance that we truly understand the gospel.

The life of faith vs. the life of politics

“A person has to be thoroughly disgusted with the way things are to find the motivation to set out on the Christian way. As long as we think that the next election might eliminate crime and establish justice or another scientific breakthrough might save the environment or another pay raise might push us over the edge of anxiety into a life of tranquility,
we are not likely to risk the arduous uncertainties of the life of faith. A person has to get
fed up with the ways of the world before he, before she, acquires an appetite for
the world of grace.”
—Eugene PetersonThis quote was at the head of The Thinklings yesterday. It is, I think, one of Eugene’s more important insights (which is saying something); grace is truly an acquired taste. I think this is particularly important because it points us a bit beyond Eugene’s own point to its corollary, that it’s as easy to lose that appetite as it is difficult to acquire it; the world is always trying to pull us back into valuing its own ways and solutions as much as it does, and if we aren’t careful, we tend to go along with that pull. Falling back into old habits of mind is easier than holding fast to new ones rigorously developed.That, I think, is why so many Christians who really ought to know better are so wrapped up in politics, because we’ve lapsed back into thinking that the next election will solve the problem (whatever we understand the problem, or problems, to be); we’ve forgotten that the tools of human beings will not accomplish the righteousness of God, and we’ve gotten into the habit of thinking that the work of the kingdom of God depends on electing this or that candidate, or winning a majority for this or that party. It isn’t so. Yes, we need to do politics to the glory of God, just as we’re supposed to do everything else to his glory; yes, God calls people to serve him in the political arena; yes, politics done to the glory of God is kingdom work. But in saying that, we need to remember two things:1) Politics done to the glory of God is conducted in humility, remembering that it’s not about us or what we can accomplish—and that God’s plans and purposes are bigger than what we can see, let alone understand; the plans of God are not to be identified with our own plans and dreams and ideas.2) Politics done to the glory of God is fundamentally different than politics done to the glory of getting re-elected, or of “winning” the issue. Indeed, sometimes the two stand diametrically opposed; when that happens, the desire to win must be set aside.

Brief meditation on gratitude and discipleship

“See, I believe that if you were chosen—that if you were elected—I believe that if God has anything for you it’s not just to make you happy. God did not choose you and call you out of this world just to make you high. And God didn’t choose you and God didn’t call you out of this world just so that you could be pious. Because there are enough pious people
and there are enough happy people in the world. What God called you for
and what God called you to is to make a difference in the world.”
—Rich MullinsHappiness is a good thing, and piety is a good thing. (Piety has a bad name with some folks, but that’s only because they’ve come across distorted versions of it rather than the real thing.) The limitation to each of them, though, is that they’re inner-directed. That’s not bad, it’s not a flaw, it’s just a simple fact: every person and every thing is limited, and this is their limitation (or one of them, anyway). Happiness is about me and my life and my circumstances, and piety is about me and my life and my relationship with God. Both are good and perfectly appropriate things; they just aren’t enough in and of themselves. God doesn’t call us to be primarily inner-directed (not that you’d know it from a lot of American spirituality); he calls us to be directed outward, in love, and grace, and gratitude. Indeed, the primary response God asks of us for our salvation is gratitude for what he has done for us and given us; out of that gratitude, then, he asks us to share what we have been given, and to love as we are loved. He calls us to make a difference in this world not out of a grim sense of duty, but out of a deep sense of joy, in simple thankfulness for the opportunity.

The need for ritual

Heather McDougal, who blogs at Cabinet of Wonders, has a brilliant post up on ritual and the reasons that drive us to create rituals—including, especially, why children do. I won’t even try to summarize it—I’ll just encourage you to go read it—but I will say that of the various points she makes, I think I appreciate this one most:

Mindfulness is not a bad thing, and making up rules to make one’s life more interesting can be a good thing. Eating your apple and raisin tart in small bites, and dividing each raisin in half to get at the sweet bit as you go, can be a way to help bring yourself into the present, to pay attention. It means you are tasting, exploring, nodding to each part of what you’re eating. Going through life like this can mean you are not gulping down experiences, not rushing yourself, but making a way to see things, feel things, notice things.

Responsibility

“For nothing is fixed, forever and forever and forever, it is not fixed; the earth is always shifting, the light is always changing, the sea does not cease to grind down rock. Generations do not cease to be born, and we are responsible to them because we are the only witnesses they have. The sea rises, the light fails, lovers cling to each other, and children cling to us. The moment we cease to hold each other, the sea engulfs us
and the light goes out.”—James BaldwinIn this world as we know it, that’s about it. God is fixed, and so as Christians we have hope of something better coming; but for now, we must live in this world as it is, without trying to pretend it’s anything different. Our call is simply to reflect God’s light in this shadowed world as brightly and clearly as possible.

A matter of trust

A year and a half ago now, a colleague of mine, preaching at our classis meeting in Colorado Springs, hit me right between the eyes with his sermon. He was preaching about trusting God, and all the reasons God has given us to do so, and how our spiritual life really begins there, at that point; in the moment that etched itself in my mind, he said, “We hear God saying, ‘Obey me, obey me, obey me’; but what God is really saying is, ‘Trust me. Trust me. Trust me.'” As he went on to say, yes, God wants our obedience, but not out of fear, or duty, or desire for reward, or any of the other reasons we come up with; God wants us to obey him because we trust that he truly knows what is best for us, and wants what is best for us, and is at work to do what is best for us.

And that’s the rub, isn’t it? Most of us, at least, don’t trust God for that, and don’t particularly want to. At some level, in at least some things, we believe we know better than God, and that God is telling us “no” because he really doesn’t want what’s best for us—he has some other agenda, some ulterior motive, someone else he wants to benefit at our expense. We don’t obey because we don’t trust; and even when, time and time again, events prove us wrong, trusting God still doesn’t seem to get any easier. And yet, through all of it, he remains faithful even when we are faithless; he remains trustworthy even when we refuse to trust him; and he keeps calling, in the stillness of our souls, “Trust me. Trust me. Trust me.” If only we will learn to listen . . .

Is there an echo in here . . . ?

Or is it just me?

Hap tagged me in another meme (or maybe I should call that a Hap zap), of which the rules are as follows:

1. List at least two posts (with links) that have resonated with you. Do not include your own posts!
2. Give a brief explanation why you like the post.
3. Tag four other people.

Resonated. What has echoed in my thoughts?

The Foolishness of Preaching: I especially value this one as a preacher myself. Whether at his own blog (as here) or on the Thinklings, I really appreciate Jared Wilson’s insight; this one was one of those “Why didn’t I think of that?” moments.

Lukewarm: Jake’s a friend of Hap’s, which in my book makes him a friend of mine, at least of sorts, even though I’ve never met the man. Anyway, we’ve all read the letter to the Laodiceans in Revelation 3, but how many of us have ever taken the next step to see lukewarmness as a trial and temptation, and something the Enemy consciously uses against us? I’m still absorbing this one.

Why No One Here Is Laughing at My Jokes: Dr. John Stackhouse is a brilliant theologian, a good and godly man, and in his acerbically witty style, one of the funniest people I’ve ever run across. I enjoyed being around him at Regent, and I think he’s wonderful. I do know, though, that some folks were put off by his sense of humor. This is a powerful piece of self-reflection on that subject; maybe it will inspire you, as it did me, to some of your own.

Doctrine as the “constitution for a community”: Confessing Evangelical is the blog of a British Lutheran lawyer who’s not only pretty deep theologically, but draws in some very interesting cross-currents. When (soon, I hope) I get around to “Defending the church, part II,” I’ll be drawing seriously on this post.

Lent: Dancing in Shadows & Light: This is something of a stand-in (what’s the term I want? Metanoia?) for the Anchoress’ ongoing reflections on Lent; I chose it as the newest up and as one of my favorites. I love the image.

Genesis 12:1-4 Pastoral Prayer: I’ve already noted that Doug Hagler and I don’t agree on all that much; but he has written some beautiful prayers. This one especially moves my soul.

An early New Year’s resolution from my wife which I, in many ways, am still trying to catch up with. “How different would our interactions with each other be if in looking at each other, our first thought was ‘Here is the work of God’s hand’”?

So, tags . . .

Sara
Barry
Erin
Wayne (what the heck, he’s got to do one of them sometime)

Let the little children come

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”—Luke 18:15-17, ESVMaybe it’s just me, but I think we find it easier to ding the disciples here than we ought to. After all, we know they shouldn’t have done this—Jesus tells us so—but too often, we don’t stop and think about why they did it. We don’t have to, because we don’t hear what they heard: babies crying (if not screaming) as their mothers struggle through the crowds to get to Jesus; bigger kids running around, shrieking, laughing, crying, throwing themselves on the ground; probably a few of them coming up to Jesus, climbing up in his lap, tugging on his robe, and asking him off-the-wall questions. We don’t hear the disruptions or see the distractions, because they’re between the lines—but kids being kids, you can bet this wasn’t a quiet, peaceful scene. If you stop to think about it, you can see where the disciples were coming from. No doubt they saw all these kids as interruptions, disruptions, distractions, interfering with the real work Jesus was doing—not as part of that work; and so they tried to push the kids out of the way so Jesus could get on with the important stuff.Jesus, of course, rebukes them for that, and in the process he identifies the root problem underlying their attitude: pride. Children have no social status, so they can’t do anything for you; if Jesus is spending his time with children, that’s time taken away from teaching and ministering to adults who do have status in society, who can increase his social standing and the respect he receives as an important and influential teacher and scholar—and thus, not incidentally, raise the standing of his disciples, as well. Part of their concern, Jesus sees, is that they want people around Israel to respect them, to look up to them, to admire them—“See Thomas over there? He’s studying under Jesus.” “Oooh, impressive!”—and Jesus taking the time to bless and teach children does absolutely nothing for that, because children don’t really count. That’s not to say they weren’t valued, or that they weren’t loved—they were; but they had no legal standing, no social standing, no reputation, no right to their own opinions, indeed, no rights to be considered at all. As such, welcoming children just wasn’t a priority for the disciples.You can see where they’re coming from, but Jesus will not let their resistance stand. “Let the children come,” he says, “and don’t hinder them.” Let them come, because the kingdom of God is for them, too; let them come, because as Matthew 18 tells us, whoever welcomes a child in Jesus’ name welcomes Jesus, while anyone who drives them away bears some of the responsibility for their sin, and thus is open to judgment. This isn’t just a matter of bringing them to church and warehousing them in the basement doing crafts while the grownups are in worship, either. That kind of approach brings children to church but not to Christ; I’m convinced it’s much of the reason why we see so few people between the ages of 18 and 30 in our churches in this country, because they’ve grown up in a church that, from the only perspective they’ve been given, has no Christ in it.No, letting the children come to Jesus is a two-part responsibility, I think. One, it means loving them the way Jesus does—which means the focus has to be on what’s best for them, not what’s most comfortable and convenient for the grownups. This is harder than it sounds, because we have a real pattern in this country of doing things in the name of children that aren’t really about them. It’s all well and good to say that children are the future, but too often that comes with the unspoken corollary that we grownups are the present. We need to begin by acknowledging that our children count in the present, too; the kids in the church are our equals in the body of Christ, and “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “Consider others more significant than yourself” apply to them just as much as they do to anyone else.The other part of letting the children come to Jesus is discipling them—and he himself told us what he expects from us there. Here’s the Great Commission as translated by Eugene Peterson in The Message:

“Go out and train everyone you meet, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then instruct them in the practice of all I have commanded you. I’ll be with you as you do this, day after day after day, right up to the end of the age.”

Children’s ministry is not about keeping children out of sight, out of earshot, and out from underfoot; it’s not even about teaching them to be nice to each other and quiet in church, though those things have their place in the process. It’s about training them in this way of life, instructing them in how to live out everything that Jesus has commanded us, teaching them what it means to follow Jesus, day after day after day, week after week after week, right up to the end of the age. It’s about, in other words, nothing less than discipleship, raising the children of the church to live as saints of God; it is, or should be, all of a piece with what we do in the rest of our ministry as the church. And there’s no clause in there to say, “Only the easy ones—only the ones who already know how to behave—only the ones you’re already comfortable having around.” Indeed, the ones who make us most uncomfortable, the ones who haven’t been taught how to behave, the ones full of anger they don’t know how to express against parents who have betrayed them and let them down, though they’re the hardest to reach, are the ones we have to try hardest to love; because if we don’t take them in, who will?

Becoming like children

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”—Matthew 18:1-4, NIVOver the centuries, people have taken Jesus’ words a lot of different ways; as the commentator Ulrich Luz has dryly noted, “every age to a great degree has read into the text its own understanding of what a child is. . . . For the most part the interpreters ask not what children are like; they ask instead what children should be. More often than not they read the text as if it said: ‘Become like good, well-behaved children.’ . . . Only infrequently do [they] remember that actual children can be quite different.”Part of the problem is with that word translated “little.” When we see “little children,” we think “young children,” but that’s not what’s in view here; what the word really means is “lowly”—one who is “insignificant, impotent, weak, and . . . in poor circumstances.” The point here is that children in that society had no social standing—nor for that matter legal standing; they were essentially property of their parents—and in fact weren’t quite regarded as fully human; they were seen as incomplete people, still unfinished. They were insigificant, physically weak, legally powerless, and utterly dependent on others. That’s why, elsewhere in the gospels, the disciples didn’t want Jesus “wasting” his time on them. But Jesus, as he so often does, flips that on his disciples and says, essentially, “I’m not wasting my time at all—you are, because your focus is in the wrong place. You’re worried about what the rich and the powerful folk think of you, and wanting to be like them—wanting to be great in the world’s eyes—when you ought to be looking at these children and learning from their example. You want to be great in the kingdom of God? Become like them—choose to be lowly. Set aside the world’s standards of importance, love those who can’t do anything for you, stop seeking honor and significance in the world’s eyes, acknowledge that you are wholly dependent on God and place all your trust in him, and serve others. Come to God not because you think you’ve earned it, but simply in the confidence that you are loved even though you haven’t.” That’s the life Jesus calls us to live; that’s the life of a child of his kingdom.